It Was Tainted Money--So Give It Back : Bradley and Bernson are wrong to fight the Ethics Commission in money-laundering case

Last August, we noted that the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission and the state Fair Political Practices Commission had exposed an intricate money-laundering scam intended to illegally hide the source of contributions to politicians’ campaigns. The joint investigation led to an $895,000 fine against Evergreen America Corp., the U.S. arm of a Taiwan-based company that operates the world’s biggest container shipping fleet and a sizable facility in the Port of Los Angeles. It was the largest penalty of its kind in U.S. history.

The case involved $170,000 in tainted contributions to more than 20 state and local candidates. It led Ethics Commission President Dennis Curtis to note that political money laundering “is a practice that is widespread.” That’s one reason the city’s voters strongly supported ethics reform three years ago. Now, one aspect of the case is winding down to a logical conclusion: an Ethics Commission order that local candidates pay to the city treasury the money they received from Evergreen.

L.A. City Council members Ruth Galanter ($7,500) and Mike Hernandez ($500) and former council candidate Kerman Maddox ($500) have given the money to the city. Gov. Pete Wilson ($4,000) and Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren ($500) have returned the contributions to Evergreen. We applaud them for their prompt response and urge them to more carefully examine their incoming contributions in the future. Councilman Richard Alatorre ($7,500) and onetime council candidate Billy Mills ($500) haven’t paid yet but say they will. They should get on with it. Unfortunately, former Mayor Tom Bradley and council members Hal Bernson and Nate Holden are another matter entirely.

Holden grudgingly says he will repay the $5,000 he received . . . if he has enough in his campaign account. That’s not good enough and Holden knows it. If his coffers are too low, then he had better raise the money--carefully this time.

Bradley and Bernson are even worse. They are defying the Ethics Commission order to repay $5,000 and $10,000, respectively. (A commission spokeperson said that the city attorney’s office had been asked to take “appropriate action” to secure the money from Bradley and Bernson.) Bernson wants a hearing first. To what end? There ought to be solace enough in the Ethics Commission acknowledgment that these funds were accepted unwittingly. This is dirty money and it’s not “unfair,” despite the arguments of Bradley’s lawyer, to call for repayment. Are they next going to argue that it’s OK to accept stolen goods if the recipient is ignorant of the thievery?